I recall the Theravada argument against an intermediate state rests largely on said state being "other than any of the birth realms". I have never understood why an "intermediate state" couldn't simply be a short lifespan in one of these realms, such as a minor deva realm for example.

In other words: a human dies, is reborn in a particular deva state - one in which his form resembles his previous human form and in which he floats around the human realm insubstantial - eventually finds and is attracted to his future parents, dies from that realm and is born to his new parents. Thus the anecdotal accounts of intermediate states could find expression within the traditional realms of Buddhist cosmology.

In other words, it seems to me if we stop calling it an "intermediate state" and instead call it a "brief birth and death in a deva realm" then the controversy disappears.

ALL THAT TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT MY ORIGINAL TOPIC WAS WORDED RIGHT! I NEVER CLEARED ANYTHING UP BUT JUST KEPT INSISTING THE ORIGINAL MADE SENSE. NOW PEOPLE ARE BACK ON TOPIC AND CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THE ORIGINAL ALL ALONG!!!!!

Peter wrote:I recall the Theravada argument against an intermediate state rests largely on said state being "other than any of the birth realms". I have never understood why an "intermediate state" couldn't simply be a short lifespan in one of these realms, such as a minor deva realm for example.

In other words: a human dies, is reborn in a particular deva state - one in which his form resembles his previous human form and in which he floats around the human realm insubstantial - eventually finds and is attracted to his future parents, dies from that realm and is born to his new parents. Thus the anecdotal accounts of intermediate states could find expression within the traditional realms of Buddhist cosmology.

In other words, it seems to me if we stop calling it an "intermediate state" and instead call it a "brief birth and death in a deva realm" then the controversy disappears.

interesting idea, i've never heard any things to the contrary. considering how many world systems there are i think there's room for such a happening.

The Buddha had no qualms about speaking of I or you being reborn. It seems to only be folks on internet forums who have such qualms. Personally, zac, I found your original question clear and easy to understand. And I am glad you received relevant answers. In short, the Buddha didn't say much about what happens between death and birth. He said so little, in fact, that I personally have found it unhelpful to dwell on the topic.

Zac, I agree with the above.

Also look at MN 135:

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn.

beeblebrox wrote:What happens after death? Ignorance (volitional formations, consciousness, clinging, existence, another birth, death again, still ignorant...) Is there an escape?

what i'm saying is: is there a temporary state between death and rebirth in which the consciousness is active? like you die, then slip into a dream world for a few days, then are reborn with no memories of anything (because only your karmic storehouse is transferred).

jcsuperstar wrote:...the problem here, if it is a problem(i don't think so),...

thanx, i don't either. i go to one temple frequently and have been to others and have had maaaaaaaany conversations with monks, nuns, and fellow laymen/women and have NEVER had as many microscopic "critiques" on my words than on this site! it's crazy! i've never had as many on other sites either!!!

There definitely seem to be suggestions in the suttas that there is a temporal gap, an intermediate state, between lives, at least with respect to rebirth in the human realm and in the case of non-returners. I have a long note to the Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Samyutta Nikaya), chapter 46, which explores this question in regard to the fivefold distinction among non-returners. I will paste it in below.

The position that rebirth is instantaneous is strongly maintained by the Theravada commentaries, but other schools of Indian Buddhism based on the early collections (pre-Mahayana) supported an intermediate state. This became a ground of contention among the Buddhist schools, sometimes generating a lot of emotional friction, but the issue seems to be given very little importance in the early discourses. Nevertheless, there are passages that suggest (quite clearly, in my opinion) that there is an intermediate state. For example, the famous Metta Sutta speaks of extending loving-kindness to 'bhuutaa vaa sambhavesii vaa' -- "to beings who have come to be and those about to come to be" -- and the suttas on nutriment say that the four kinds of nutriment are "for the maintence of those that have come to be and to assist those about to come to be." Those beings that are sambhavesii, "about to come to be" (or "seeking existence") must be an allusion to those in the intermediate state seeking a new rebirth.

See too SN 44:9, in which Vacchagotta asks the Buddha: "When a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?" The Buddha does not reject V's question by asserting that such a situation is impossible. He says, rather, that in such a situation "I declare that it is fueled by craving.382 For on that occasion craving is its fuel."

Note 382 reads:382. Tam aha˙ ta˚hÒp›d›na˙ vad›mi. The Buddha’s statement seems to imply that a temporal gap can intervene between the death moment and reconception. Since this contradicts Therav›da orthodoxy, Spk contends that at the death moment itself the being is said to be “not yet reborn” because the rebirth-consciousness has not yet arisen.

I have also found evidence for beings in this state from the reported rebirth memories of people who (without meditative experience) can recollect their previous life and death. Several cases I have read of this type report that the being, after passing away, spends some time moving about in a subtle body (identical in form with their previous body, hence with a sense of the same personal identity) until they find themselves drawn towards a particular couple, who then become their new parents. Some cases like this are included in Francis Story's book, Rebirth as Doctrine and Experience (published by the Buddhist Publcation Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka).

See too Peter Harvey's book, The Selfless Mind (Curzon) which I refer to in the note below.65 This fivefold typology of nonreturners recurs at 48:15, 24, 66; 51:26; 54:5; and 55:25. Spk explains the antar›parinibb›yı (“attainer of Nibb›na in the interval”) as one reborn in the Pure Abodes who attains arahantship during the first half of the life span. This type is subdivided into three, depending on whether arahantship is reached: (i) on the very day of rebirth; (ii) after one or two hundred aeons have elapsed; or (iii) after four hundred aeons have elapsed. The upahaccaparinibb›yı (“attainer of Nibb›na upon landing”) is explained as one who attains arahantship after passing the first half of the life span. For Spk, the asaºkh›raparinibb›yı (“attainer without exertion”) and the sasaºkh›raparinibb›yı (“attainer with exertion”) then become two modes in which the first two types of nonreturners attain the goal. This explanation originates from Pp 16–17 (commented on at Pp-a 198–201). However, not only does this account of the first two types disregard the literal meaning of their names, but it also overrides the sequential and mutually exclusive nature of the five types as delineated elsewhere in the suttas (see below). If we understand the term antar›parinibb›yı literally, as it seems we should, it then means one who attains Nibb›na in the interval between two lives, perhaps while existing in a subtle body in the intermediate state. The upahaccaparinibb›yı then becomes one who attains Nibb›na “upon landing” or “striking ground” in the new existence, i.e., almost immediately after taking rebirth. The next two terms designate two types who attain arahantship in the course of the next life, distinguished by the amount of effort they must make to win the goal. The last, the uddha˙sota akani˛˛hag›mı, is one who takes rebirth in successive Pure Abodes, completes the full life span in each, and finally attains arahantship in the Akani˛˛ha realm, the highest Pure Abode.This interpretation, adopted by several non-Therav›da schools of early Buddhism, seems to be confirmed by the Purisagati Sutta (AN IV 70–74), in which the simile of the flaming chip suggests that the seven types (including the three kinds of antar›parinibb›yı) are mutually exclusive and have been graded according to the sharpness of their faculties. Additional support comes from AN II 134,25–29, which explains the antar›parinibb›yı as one who has abandoned the fetter of rebirth (upapattisa˙yojana) without yet having abandoned the fetter of existence (bhavasa˙yojana). Though the Therav›din proponents argue against this interpretation of antar›parinibb›yı (e.g., at Kv 366), the evidence from the suttas leans strongly in its favour. For a detailed discussion, see Harvey, The Selfless Mind, pp. 98–108. AN II 155–56 draws an alternative distinction between the sasaºkh›raparinibb›yı and the asaºkh›raparinibb›yı: the former reaches arahantship through meditation on the “austere” meditation subjects such as the foulness of the body, the perception of the repulsiveness of food, discontent with the whole world, the perception of impermanence in all formations, and mindfulness of death; the latter, through the four jh›nas."

=====================================================

with mettaChris

I have also found evidence for beings in this state from the reported rebirth memories of people who (without meditative experience) can recollect their previous life and death.

this is interesting chris! i've read reports of people with no meditation training or any religious affiliation recalling past lives with provable accuracy as well! very deep stuff. i wonder what it means?

and the things that suggest an intermediate state definitely warrant thought, i wish they were more clear though.

The Buddha had no qualms about speaking of I or you being reborn. It seems to only be folks on internet forums who have such qualms. Personally, zac, I found your original question clear and easy to understand. And I am glad you received relevant answers. In short, the Buddha didn't say much about what happens between death and birth. He said so little, in fact, that I personally have found it unhelpful to dwell on the topic.

Zac, I agree with the above.

Also look at MN 135:

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn.

awesome!!!!!!!! check that out everyone!!!!!!! the buddha himself says "REBORN". so who is right? you guys or the buddha?

although i'm sure you're thinking the translator is at fault, but again this is a bhikkhu bodhi translation so who knows their stuff better, him or...?

jcsuperstar wrote:geeezwhy are you trying to goad people into an argument?

because i started this thread, asking a simple question and it was turned into a debate (argument) because i used the word "rebirth". i got a looot of posts about how this was wrong. now another user is backing me up with a quote from the canon so i'm just pointing out that there was no reason to debate my wording in the first place.

conversations on here are ridiculously complicated sometimes.

here is a non buddhist version of what's going on here:

joe has posted this topic: "hey look at my new car. what do you think of it? like the color?" followed by a picture of his car.

normal conversation: "i like it! " "i don't like it." "the color is ok." "nice car, i have one kind of similar." "that car is pretty good and the same company makes one that gets x amount of miles per gallon." "that car is not very fast." etc.

these quotes are to the point, on topic and constructive.

debate of word play (what has happened to the current topic): "oooh i don't know if you should spell "color" that way. it might be better to use the united kingdom spelling of "colour"". "i'm not sure it qualifies to use the word "car", the engine in that sedan uses such and such a mechanism that makes it more of another kind of vehicle." "when you say "my" car it implies that you own it when technically one can never "own" anything." "paying attention to quantum physics lets us know colors are not what they seem so you can't know what color your car is anyway."

these quotes are pointing out things that are far from what the point of the conversation is, off topic, and critical in a way that isn't helpful in advancing the conversation. they are true statements but they are not helpful other than from a perspective outside of the original topic. it is also clear that the people commenting on the car do understand the question but are picking apart the words used to frame the question instead of just answering it.

i'm a little frustrated because simple conversations are destroyed by this kind of thinking and it's hard to keep silent when i'm proven to be right in the first place, even if what i was right about was a micro analysis. talking like this, one never really gets the opinions one wanted about the car but instead learns little facts about cars and grammar that are not helpful to the topic at hand.

but yeah i think it would be more helpful to just ignore posts that aren't relevant to the topic or that are micro-analyzing in ways that are so intricate that it takes the conversation in a direction that is very far from the original topic.

sorry if it bothers you jc i'll steer away from this non-sense in the future.

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn.

awesome!!!!!!!! check that out everyone!!!!!!! the buddha himself says "REBORN". so who is right? you guys or the buddha?

although i'm sure you're thinking the translator is at fault, but again this is a bhikkhu bodhi translation so who knows their stuff better, him or...?

also sorry if this sounds harsh guys! it's all in good fun! i love talking to you all even if it does turn into a debate about words!

the spirit of this statement is like we're playing scrabble and my word was challenged and proven right and i say, in a playful way: "ha ha, i looked it up and my word IS in the dictionary! who knows words better webster's dictionary or...?". if you could hear my voice and see my face instead of reading what i say it would be clear it's all in good fun, don't worry -zac

You should take it easy, Zac. None of what the people said in here was about you, or what you said... just the way the question was phrased. Yes, I understood the question the first time, don't worry.

The problem was that the "you" part of the question was taken as a "self" by some people on here (why wouldn't they?), so this means that they think the question was coming from a wrong view, making it irrelevant to the Dhamma (meaning that it doesn't answer these sort of questions). This isn't being anal, or splitting hairs... it's very relevant to the Dhamma.

Having the right view (and therefore, asking the right questions) is crucial to understanding what the Buddha actually taught. This has nothing to do with you. The way that I understand it at the moment - the Buddha didn't teach about a "self" being reborn, only formations.

As for what Peter said:

Peter wrote:I have never understood why an "intermediate state" couldn't simply be a short lifespan in one of these realms, such as a minor deva realm for example.

The deva's lifespan is very long from what I recall... something like tens of thousand of human years. That can't be called an intermediate state, unless my own understanding of time is wrong.

Last edited by beeblebrox on Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:31 pm, edited 4 times in total.

beeblebrox wrote:You should take it easy, Zac. None of what the people said in here was about you, or what you said... just the way the question was phrased. Yes, I understood the question the first time, don't worry.

The problem was that the "you" part of the question was taken as a "self" by some people on here (why wouldn't they?), so this means that they think the question was coming from a wrong view, making it irrelevant to the Dhamma. This isn't being anal, or splitting hairs... it's very relevant to the Dhamma.

Having the right view (and therefore, asking the right questions) is crucial to understanding what the Buddha actually taught. This has nothing to do with you. The way that I understand it at the moment - there is no "self" that is being reborn, only formations.

As for what Peter said:

Peter wrote:I have never understood why an "intermediate state" couldn't simply be a short lifespan in one of these realms, such as a minor deva realm for example.

The deva's lifespan is very long from what I recall... something like tens of thousand of human years. That can't be called an intermediate state, unless my own understanding of time is wrong.

i am taking it easy, i promise . like i said earlier i was raised by an english professor so debates on wording and validity of speech are nothing new to me and aren't a bad thing (that is until it destroys the focus of the topic). yeah i know, at first everyone didn't like "reborn" but then that turned out to be a commonly used term in buddhist writings. then it was that i used the phrase "teachings on death" and then other posters said this made sense also. so now it's that i used the word "you". fantastic. have fun guys, i'm just going to smile and read the posts that are trying to answer the question as opposed to questioning the question, when the original question is clear enough. ONLY a well read buddhist who is looking for fault could find fault in it and everyone else, including well read buddhists not looking for fault, doesn't bother. the topic makes sense and is simple enough. what happens when you guys read a book that has a sentence like this? do you write letters to the editor? that's not a jab i'm legitimately curious . it seems to be a huge problem so how is it handled when you can't simply look for fault in someones text and then post on it instantly?

personally i don't worry about that kind of thing. if i know what the author meant, i don't find it worth my time to think about it any more than necessary. this is evident in my postings on here as well. you will find none that are critical of someone's diction.

for example if someone wrote: "the buddha said that people die live karma." i would make a comment asking for this to be clarified as this is incomprehensible. but if they wrote "the buddha said that, when meditating, we should breath in and out and be thoughtful of this..." i would not say "hey he said mindful which has a slightly different meaning than mindful. blah blah blah." because the statement is clear and obvious even if there is a word used that's meaning is a little off.

in fact i'm willing to bet that if i mailed my topic to a famous buddhist author or teacher these issues would not be brought up at all! he/she would assume what i meant, like anyone else, and would mail me an answer. he/she would not mail me a statement questioning my usage of the words "self", "death", "rebirth", etc.

this is micro managing. i know for some it's tough to see a word you think should be replaced by another word, but if the text makes sense as a whole, what's the point?

and again you said you understood the question! so what's the problem?

Peter wrote:I have never understood why an "intermediate state" couldn't simply be a short lifespan in one of these realms, such as a minor deva realm for example.

The deva's lifespan is very long from what I recall... something like tens of thousand of human years. That can't be called an intermediate state, unless my own understanding of time is wrong.

From what I recall, there are many different deva realms and lifespans vary from realm to realm. But if it makes you feel better then pretend I said "ghost realm" instead of "deva realm". The meaning is preserved.

Zac, the simple and obvious truth is that on an internet forum there will be posts we find helpful and posts we don't find helpful and there's nothing we can do about it. I find it best to simply ignore the unhelpful ones. I have rarely seen telling someone "your post was not helpful" result in anything constructive.

I think these are good points, Zac. I'm just wondering... what would you say if someone asked this question - "According to Mathematics, what happens after you die?"

Where I'm at right now (doesn't necessarily mean that I have the right view, yet), I get the same impression when someone asks me - "According to Buddha, what happens after you die?"

Both of those questions seem like they come from wrong ideas, about what Math or the Dhamma are supposed to be about. The former is just about numbers, and the latter is just about the cessation of suffering.

I think that (not saying that you're wrong, Zac) trying to make an attempt to use either of those to answer that specific question, the way it is phrased, would be a misuse of each system.

Peter wrote:I have never understood why an "intermediate state" couldn't simply be a short lifespan in one of these realms, such as a minor deva realm for example.

The deva's lifespan is very long from what I recall... something like tens of thousand of human years. That can't be called an intermediate state, unless my own understanding of time is wrong.

From what I recall, there are many different deva realms and lifespans vary from realm to realm. But if it makes you feel better then pretend I said "ghost realm" instead of "deva realm". The meaning is preserved.

Zac, the simple and obvious truth is that on an internet forum there will be posts we find helpful and posts we don't find helpful and there's nothing we can do about it. I find it best to simply ignore the unhelpful ones. I have rarely seen telling someone "your post was not helpful" result in anything constructive.

MN 57 wrote:Punna: "Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What will be his future course?"Buddha: "On the dissolution of the body, after death, if his dog duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him to hell."

I have often come across people who feel that talking about rebirth is a "misuse of the system" and yet when I read passages like the one above I feel it is otherwise.

beeblebrox wrote:I think these are good points, Zac. I'm just wondering... what would you say if someone asked this question - "According to Mathematics, what happens after you die?"

Where I'm at right now (doesn't necessarily mean that I have the right view, yet), I get the same impression when someone asks me - "According to Buddha, what happens after you die?"

Both of those questions seem like they come from wrong ideas, about what Math or the Dhamma are supposed to be about. The former is just about numbers, and the latter is just about the cessation of suffering.

I think that (not saying that you're wrong, Zac) trying to make an attempt to use either of those to answer that specific question, the way it is phrased, would be a misuse of each system.

go ahead and post a topic called "according to mathematics what happens after you die?" and then we'll compare people's understanding of your post to my post. if you are looking at the topic with a super buddhist microscope then you could be right but again, this is a waste of time. my post made sense, you said so yourself. comparing my "according to the buddha what happens after you die?" statement to yours makes very little sense. according to mathematics??? really??? the buddha gave talks on what happens after a person dies, this is what everyone will think of when they read my post. there are no talks i know of by the buddha on what mathematical implications there are on the death of a human. you are implying that the intricacies of buddhism are so vast that asking what i asked doesn't even make sense. this is clearly not true as no one is confused about what my post meant.

considering the fact that the buddha used the words "death" and "rebirth" and gave teachings on what happens after a person dies, i don't think my topic needs any re-wording. honestly i don't understand what everyone's game is here, it's actually kind of strange. i've literally read the same combinations of words i used in books by buddhist authors and in the pali canon itself! the funny thing is that if i looked up some and posted them then you or someone else would just change your argument and pretend you were never proven wrong. instead of the word "you" being the problem it would be the word "after".

once again the first critiques were on the use of the word "rebirth" and then when people noticed bhikkhu bodhi uses that word everyone clammed up and then a new target word was picked. what do you even want???? if i just said "yeah you're right! no one will understand my topic! it makes as little sense as saying "death according to mathematics"! all the people who understood my topic (you included) must just be blind luck." would you be happy?

MN 57 wrote:Punna: "Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What will be his future course?"Buddha: "On the dissolution of the body, after death, if his dog duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him to hell."

I have often come across people who feel that talking about rebirth is a "misuse of the system" and yet when I read passages like the one above I feel it is otherwise.

zac wrote:honestly i don't understand what everyone's game is here, it's actually kind of strange. i've literally read the same combinations of words i used in books by buddhist authors and in the pali canon itself! the funny thing is that if i looked up some and posted them then you or someone else would just change your argument and pretend you were never proven wrong. instead of the word "you" being the problem it would be the word "after".

I think you're confusing my posts with other people's... I don't do that, and I don't think anyone is either. It seems like you're taking everyone on here and then turned them into one person saying different things.

I'm only trying contribute to the discussion, the best I can. I type in what I think might be relevant to the issues at hand. I don't try to shift my views around, for the sake of being right. (Who cares about being wrong, anyway?) Sorry if it doesn't seem that way to you.

I'm not perfect, the same as you aren't, Zac (and I'm sure everyone else on here). Please try to read my posts the same way you would want me (and everyone else) to read yours, right?

I actually want a real discussion. Not self-defensiveness and nitpicking. For some reason this thread isn't conductive to that. Why, Zac? I'm not on anyone's side... if it matters that much to you.